Jay Carney: Obama never said he was opposed to signing statements in all cases

posted at 5:37 pm on April 18, 2011 by Allahpundit

The inevitable, and inevitably pathetic, follow-up to Friday night’s news dump in which The One quietly rejected Congress’s defunding of his czars. Carney cites, among other reports, an interview Obama gave to Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe on the campaign trail in late 2007. Let’s revisit it, shall we?

Signing statements have been used by presidents of both parties, dating back to Andrew Jackson. While it is legitimate for a president to issue a signing statement to clarify his understanding of ambiguous provisions of statutes and to explain his view of how he intends to faithfully execute the law, it is a clear abuse of power to use such statements as a license to evade laws that the president does not like or as an end-run around provisions designed to foster accountability.

I will not use signing statements to nullify or undermine congressional instructions as enacted into law. The problem with this administration is that it has attached signing statements to legislation in an effort to change the meaning of the legislation, to avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation. The fact that President Bush has issued signing statements to challenge over 1100 laws – more than any president in history – is a clear abuse of this prerogative. No one doubts that it is appropriate to use signing statements to protect a president’s constitutional prerogatives; unfortunately, the Bush Administration has gone much further than that.

I’m highlighting every third word or so in that excerpt because every third word represents a different argument. In a nutshell: It’s okay to issue a signing statement where the bill is unclear or where there’s a legit constitutional objection. Where, however, Congress’s will is clear and you’re floating a bogus constitutional objection as an excuse to disregard part of the bill, then the signing statement is off limits. Question: How do we know if a president’s constitutional objection is legitimate or bogus? Presumptive answer: If the president making the objection is named “Barack Obama,” it’s totally solid. That’s the best I can do to wring a cogent explanation out of this for why his Friday night statement asserting “constitutional responsibilities” isn’t completely hypocritical. And I do mean completely: Note how he singled out “provisions designed to foster accountability” in his 2007 answer to the Globe. The big problem with his czars all along has been that not all of them are accountable to Congress in the way that duly confirmed cabinet officials are. So Congress, quite naturally, decided to cut off their funding — as part of a budget deal blessed by the White House and the Democratic leadership — and The One decided to simply wish that provision away after the fact. That’s “accountability,” Hopenchange style. I can only assume that, if pressed, he’d resort to saying that at least he hasn’t done this a thousand times like Bush did. A president’s entitled to ignore the Constitution once or twice, as long as he doesn’t make a habit of it, right?

I already posted it on Friday night but I’m reposting the clip below of him talking about signing statements at a townhall meeting on the trail in early 2008, five months after he spoke to the Globe. No equivocation in his answer this time; when standing before the Hopenchange faithful, he was resolute that if the president objects to a provision in a bill on his desk, whether for constitutional reasons or otherwise, his only option was to veto it. Had he taken that advice in this case, it would have forced a government shutdown, which would have struck a blow to the one thing he cares about above all others, i.e. his own reelection. So he did what he normally does in a tough situation and ignored a campaign pledge to his base. Why shouldn’t he? They’ll vote for him anyway. Click the image to watch.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

“The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy,” Scalise said.

How can he wish it away with a signing statement. Even if it came from up on high engraved in stone, it’s still up to congress to fund the paychecks of the czars. If they’re not willing to do so then Barry’s signing statement isn’t worth the paper it’s printed on.

YOU all watch – read it here and remember – because his numbers are way down with whites, yes those bible-thumping, gun-toting, toothless hicks from VA and etc…he will reclaim his white mother by Nov. 2012, and claim that he is half white and all that.

Just recall that he disowned his mother’s background in his book/s, considering it too “aloof”. He loved to be only black.

Jay Carney said, it all depends on what the definition of what is – is…. Carney: oh sorry I just regurgitated the last lawyer’s excuse reason for lying, who was USING occupying the oval office. Carney, Hey who is up for a tour of the Lincoln Bedroom. LOL!

“The president does not have the option of choosing which laws he will follow and which laws he can ignore,” Scalise said in a statement, accusing Obama of acting like a “dictator.”

“The president knew that the czar amendment was part of the overall budget deal he agreed to, and if he cannot be trusted to keep his word on this, then how can he be trusted as we negotiate on larger issues like federal spending and the economy,” Scalise said.

Schadenfreude on April 18, 2011 at 5:46 PM

If I were Boehner, I would tell Obama NO MORE DEALS, we’re shutting down the government, so go play some golf Mister Falcon Melon Farmer.

YOU all watch – read it here and remember – because his numbers are way down with whites, yes those bible-thumping, gun-toting, toothless hicks from VA and etc…he will reclaim his white mother by Nov. 2012, and claim that he is half white and all that.

Just recall that he disowned his mother’s background in his book/s, considering it too “aloof”. He loved to be only black.

Schadenfreude on April 18, 2011 at 5:52 PM

You may be on to something, so I’ve bookmarked your comment for future reference.

Had he taken that advice in this case, it would have forced a government shutdown, which would have struck a blow to the one thing he cares about above all others, i.e. his own reelection. So he did what he normally does in a tough situation and ignored a campaign pledge to his base.

That’s him. The last sentence is his entire campaign strategy. The lies we’ve already seen are nothing compared to what we’re probably going to hear in the next year.

This isn’t exactly the kind of example that most parents want for their children. It would be nice if parents could point to the President as an example of integrity, character, and graciousness, but it seems that is no longer valued in our national leader.

With Clinton, the excuse was that we should look past personal character flaws because what was really important was competence. So, many let character slip away as part of the national leader.

Now, we find ourselves with a national leader with neither character or competence. It’s time to draw the line!
Fortunately, there are other examples. The antidote for public figures who lie and break their promises is parents who tell the truth and keep their promises.

Well.. After careful thought and consideration, there is nobody that I trust more in this life than Howdy Doodie a/k/a Jay Carney.

I would put all of my trust in this meatpuppet and I trust everything this meatpuppet says, no matter what.

Because Obama is a genius and Sarah Palin and Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann and everyone else who is not a democrat is mentally retarded.

Above all, my full faith and trust lies in the meatpuppet that holds the office of the PresentDunce. Because Obama is Awesome and everyone else is stupid. Yes, that is the ticket. Yes, that is the ticket. Yes, that is the ticket.

He needs to step down. Lord in Heaven knows he’s been calling for others to step down. It’s time for him to step aside, take his wife and his girls and go back to Chicago into irrelevancy.

Key West Reader on April 18, 2011 at 6:21 PM

He won’t step down on his own, we know. Aside from impeachment (that is as unlikely), how can he be forced from office? By the military? He’s threatening the entire foundation of this country. He cares little for the constitution. Is there sincerely anything that can be done except to hope that the masses aren’t stupid again in 2012? He is a nightmare.

avoid enforcing certain provisions of the legislation that the President does not like, and to raise implausible or dubious constitutional objections to the legislation…. a clear abuse of this prerogative

So he did what he normally does in a tough situation and ignored a campaign pledge to his base.

Hold on. We’re supposed to accept that a statement of willingness to tie his own hands vs. Congress was truthful at the time it was made? There’s a shorter word for what this jackass says than, “campaign pledge.”

I do not see a problem with a CEO declaring he does not need $XXX to properly do his job. Why should the POTUS be any different? If he refuses to spend some allocated money we can call that “profit” or we can call it “deferred maintenance.” Time defines which it was.

But if a CEO is given a budget of $XXX and told specifically not to spend any of it on heavy duty cat vomit cleaning tools said CEO (POTUS) had bloody darned well not spend any of his budget on heavy duty cat vomit cleaning tools – or EPA carbon regulations.